Narrative:

We were climbing at 600 FPM through FL260 for an assigned altitude of FL290. We received a 'traffic, traffic' warning on our TCASII. It turns out that a B737 was level at FL260 heading west. At the first TCASII traffic warning, the B737 was approximately at our 12 O'clock position and 10-12 NM. We received an RA at approximately 7-8 NM and increased our climb rate to the amount required on the TA/vsi. I estimate we passed over the B737 within 1 mi laterally and approximately 1100 ft above them with us in a climb and them descending. We (air carrier X and air carrier Y) were both monitoring the same ZME controller. What concerns me is a conversation that took place on the radio shortly after the event. The B737 pilot alleged that we were level at FL260 and not climbing and the controller agreed. At the time, we were undergoing an FAA safety inspection. With the flight engineer and FAA safety inspector, we had 4 sets of eyes in the cockpit and we never climbed at less than 600 FPM. I do not believe the air waves are the place to accuse others of wrongdoing. In my opinion, the other air carrier was doing nothing wrong, since they were level at FL260 and heading wbound. We were climbing to an assigned altitude of FL290 and were performing our duties properly. It seems to me to be an ATC error. Most controllers are aware that a relatively heavy B727 at higher flight levels has marginal climb performance. At lower altitudes, we had a 1000-1500 FPM climb rate, but this decreased at higher altitudes to 600 FPM. I am also aware that the aim states to notify the controller if we are unable to climb or descend at greater than 500 FPM. At no time did we climb at less than 600 FPM. A contributing factor is that we were IMC with a temperature below 10 degrees C, so engine anti-ice was on and further decreases engine performance. Supplemental information from acn 503562: we were climbing more slowly than usual because WX conditions necessitated engine anti-ice on. After speaking with the ZME supervisor, he indicated that cruise/climb TCASII TA's and RA's are a result of the faster climbing aircraft. Supplemental information from acn 503189: as I was maintaining FL260, ZME gave me traffic at 12 O'clock position, a B727 that was to climb through FL260 to FL310. At this time the B727 stayed level at FL260, and on the TCASII 5 mi range the alert indicated red. I then asked if the B727 was climbing. Then ZME said that he was, but appeared to be level. At that time, I received an RA on the TCASII to descend and I lowered the nose to FL255. I then asked the controller what was going on, and he said that the B727 was to climb but did not do so.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B727, WITH LOWERED CLB RATE DUE TO WX FACTORS, CONFLICTS WITH OPPOSITE DIRECTION B737 AT FL260 UNDER ZME CTL.

Narrative: WE WERE CLBING AT 600 FPM THROUGH FL260 FOR AN ASSIGNED ALT OF FL290. WE RECEIVED A 'TFC, TFC' WARNING ON OUR TCASII. IT TURNS OUT THAT A B737 WAS LEVEL AT FL260 HDG W. AT THE FIRST TCASII TFC WARNING, THE B737 WAS APPROX AT OUR 12 O'CLOCK POS AND 10-12 NM. WE RECEIVED AN RA AT APPROX 7-8 NM AND INCREASED OUR CLB RATE TO THE AMOUNT REQUIRED ON THE TA/VSI. I ESTIMATE WE PASSED OVER THE B737 WITHIN 1 MI LATERALLY AND APPROX 1100 FT ABOVE THEM WITH US IN A CLB AND THEM DSNDING. WE (ACR X AND ACR Y) WERE BOTH MONITORING THE SAME ZME CTLR. WHAT CONCERNS ME IS A CONVERSATION THAT TOOK PLACE ON THE RADIO SHORTLY AFTER THE EVENT. THE B737 PLT ALLEGED THAT WE WERE LEVEL AT FL260 AND NOT CLBING AND THE CTLR AGREED. AT THE TIME, WE WERE UNDERGOING AN FAA SAFETY INSPECTION. WITH THE FE AND FAA SAFETY INSPECTOR, WE HAD 4 SETS OF EYES IN THE COCKPIT AND WE NEVER CLBED AT LESS THAN 600 FPM. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE AIR WAVES ARE THE PLACE TO ACCUSE OTHERS OF WRONGDOING. IN MY OPINION, THE OTHER ACR WAS DOING NOTHING WRONG, SINCE THEY WERE LEVEL AT FL260 AND HDG WBOUND. WE WERE CLBING TO AN ASSIGNED ALT OF FL290 AND WERE PERFORMING OUR DUTIES PROPERLY. IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE AN ATC ERROR. MOST CTLRS ARE AWARE THAT A RELATIVELY HVY B727 AT HIGHER FLT LEVELS HAS MARGINAL CLB PERFORMANCE. AT LOWER ALTS, WE HAD A 1000-1500 FPM CLB RATE, BUT THIS DECREASED AT HIGHER ALTS TO 600 FPM. I AM ALSO AWARE THAT THE AIM STATES TO NOTIFY THE CTLR IF WE ARE UNABLE TO CLB OR DSND AT GREATER THAN 500 FPM. AT NO TIME DID WE CLB AT LESS THAN 600 FPM. A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IS THAT WE WERE IMC WITH A TEMP BELOW 10 DEGS C, SO ENG ANTI-ICE WAS ON AND FURTHER DECREASES ENG PERFORMANCE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 503562: WE WERE CLBING MORE SLOWLY THAN USUAL BECAUSE WX CONDITIONS NECESSITATED ENG ANTI-ICE ON. AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE ZME SUPVR, HE INDICATED THAT CRUISE/CLB TCASII TA'S AND RA'S ARE A RESULT OF THE FASTER CLBING ACFT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 503189: AS I WAS MAINTAINING FL260, ZME GAVE ME TFC AT 12 O'CLOCK POS, A B727 THAT WAS TO CLB THROUGH FL260 TO FL310. AT THIS TIME THE B727 STAYED LEVEL AT FL260, AND ON THE TCASII 5 MI RANGE THE ALERT INDICATED RED. I THEN ASKED IF THE B727 WAS CLBING. THEN ZME SAID THAT HE WAS, BUT APPEARED TO BE LEVEL. AT THAT TIME, I RECEIVED AN RA ON THE TCASII TO DSND AND I LOWERED THE NOSE TO FL255. I THEN ASKED THE CTLR WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND HE SAID THAT THE B727 WAS TO CLB BUT DID NOT DO SO.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.